Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Absolute undeniable proof the "god" of Abraham is flawed and imperfect

Posted on: June 19, 2009 - 5:11pm

digitalbeachbum

Posts: 3937

Joined: 2007-10-15

Offline

Absolute undeniable proof the "god" of Abraham is flawed and imperfect

I searched the site but could not find this subject, so I'm posting it here.

As the story goes, "god" is Omnipotent. Perfect. Flawless. Almighty. All knowing. etc. We all know where this usually leads the believer, "god" can do any thing.

So here is my observation:

If I wrote a document and saved it, the process of writing the document and saving it can not undone. People who believe in a creator would say that "god could undo any thing and god could make it so you have never written the document in the first place. God could format the hard drive or delete your document."

OK, fine, but it still happened at some time, some place.

But then the believer would say, "Then god would erase every mind so that know one would remember it". Well, that's really powerful stuff, but if "god" had to erase every mind, then "god" is covering up the fact that "god" can't undo what has happened. Even if "god" would erase its own mind, some time, some place, some dimension, what I wrote in a document can not be undone. It has happened and nothing can undo it."

I know this is a similar fallacy with "god" as the unmovable/too heavy/stone, but I thought I'd post it any way.

Of course, if God did erase the past, there would be absolutely no way for us to know. So I don't see how you can say that he cannot do it. Just because he hasn't erased your particular act of writing in a book, doesn't mean he couldn't. And if he did, then you'd never know it. It wouldn't even occur to you to propose that act as something god did or did not erase, because, to you, it never occurred.

There is nothing logically contradictory with a god who can rewrite the past, in contrast to the heavy stone argument.

On the other hand, I don't see why a god could not both create a stone too heavy for him to lift, and also to lift it. Who says god has to obey logic? Sheesh, the Christians make a big deal of the illogic of their god, a la the Trinity. The heavy stone argument is peanuts compared to that.

There is nothing logically contradictory with a god who can rewrite the past, in contrast to the heavy stone argument.

On the other hand, I don't see why a god could not both create a stone too heavy for him to lift, and also to lift it. Who says god has to obey logic?

Presumably the only 'one' who hold that 'god' had to obey logic would be 'god'

There's one tiny clarification I'd like to make, however. And that is: Nothing obeys logic. The world simply is. Things simply are. The world is neither logical or illogical. Logic has to do with arguments. It tells us when a premise, or set of premises, contradict. We can hold, as I do, that our logical arguments are signs that point to things outside of our brains, but even then, it doesn't follow that things are logical any more than it follows that objects 'obey' our laws of gravity.

So, what does it really mean when we put forth a set of contradictory actions? When one puts forth a set of actions that 'contradict' each other, what one is really saying is that one action necessarily precludes the other. For a rock to be 'too heavy to lift', it necessarily follows that it cannot be lifted. The statement 'too heavy to lift' precludes the possibility of any action that involves lifting the rock.

So what does it mean to say that a rock that is 'too heavy to be lifted' can nontheless be lifted by some sort of super being?

My first thought is this: It is to say that the super being, by 'nature' of its omnipotence, automatically and necessarily alters reality - 'it' alters the first physical fact: 'too heavy to lift', making it 'liftable'. Which of course means that it is not any longer 'unliftable'....

So, what does any of this mean? I really don't know other than to say that I think it must follow that for an omnipotent being, there can be no 'contradictions'. Another thing I can say is that omnipotence necessarily renders the entire universe contingent.... nothing is necessary..... but if this then means that the law of noncontradiction is contingent.... then what? Logic is only for the less than omnipotent, apparently.

Ultimately, the game of theology leads to rather odd conclusions, of the sort that i doubt any theologians bother to ponder...

Of course, if God did erase the past, there would be absolutely no way for us to know. So I don't see how you can say that he cannot do it. Just because he hasn't erased your particular act of writing in a book, doesn't mean he couldn't. And if he did, then you'd never know it. It wouldn't even occur to you to propose that act as something god did or did not erase, because, to you, it never occurred.

There is nothing logically contradictory with a god who can rewrite the past, in contrast to the heavy stone argument.

On the other hand, I don't see why a god could not both create a stone too heavy for him to lift, and also to lift it. Who says god has to obey logic? Sheesh, the Christians make a big deal of the illogic of their god, a la the Trinity. The heavy stone argument is peanuts compared to that.

If I went back in time to undo some thing, I would know that it happened, there for it still happened.

If god went back in time to undo some thing, god would know it happened, there for it still happened.

If god went back in time to undo some thing and also erased its mind, so that nothing could remember that it happened, it still happened because erasing the mind of god would only be a coverup of what really transpired.